Providence Washington Ins. v. Bradley Fertilizer Co.

D. Rhode Island

Providence Washington Ins. v. Bradley Fertilizer Co.

33 F. 685, 1888 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7

DecidedFebruary 13, 1888

StatusPublished

This text of 33 F. 685 (Providence Washington Ins. v. Bradley Fertilizer Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Providence Washington Ins. v. Bradley Fertilizer Co., 33 F. 685, 1888 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7 (D.R.I. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Carpenter, J.

I shall not refer to the evidence further than to say that I find as a fact, for the purposes of this case, that there is a custom in the trade to carry oil in barrels on deck, in coasting voyages, when the under-deck cargo consists of fish-scrap, and that the defendant is chargeable with knowledge of this custom. The question, then, is whether the existence of this custom is to be held to impose a liability to contribute on the under-deck cargo. After mature consideration I am [687]*687satisfied that it cannot be so held. I see no consideration moving to the shippers of the under-deck cargo which could furnish an equitable ground for the imposition of increased liability on them. Where a custom-exists, as in this case, to-carry a particular kind of goods on deck under particular circumstances I think the shippers of under-deck cargo might be so far affected as that they could not maintain any claim for the increased risk resulting from such shipment. But I can see no reason why their rights and liabilities should be otherwise affected. There will be a decree dismissing the libel, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Carpenter, J.

I shall not refer to the evidence further than to say that I find as a fact, for the purposes of this case, that there is a custom in the trade to carry oil in barrels on deck, in coasting voyages, when the under-deck cargo consists of fish-scrap, and that the defendant is chargeable with knowledge of this custom. The question, then, is whether the existence of this custom is to be held to impose a liability to contribute on the under-deck cargo. After mature consideration I am [687]*687satisfied that it cannot be so held. I see no consideration moving to the shippers of the under-deck cargo which could furnish an equitable ground for the imposition of increased liability on them. Where a custom-exists, as in this case, to-carry a particular kind of goods on deck under particular circumstances I think the shippers of under-deck cargo might be so far affected as that they could not maintain any claim for the increased risk resulting from such shipment. But I can see no reason why their rights and liabilities should be otherwise affected. There will be a decree dismissing the libel, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 F. 685, 1888 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/providence-washington-ins-v-bradley-fertilizer-co-rid-1888.